2001 Supreme(MP) 459

S.S. Saraf, J.
Abdul Hanif v. State of M.P.
Misc. Cr. Case No. 1632 of 2000 (J); Decided on 6.8.2001.*

Headnote:Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 482 and 228 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.306/34 and 107 -- applicants-accused allegedly threatened and beat up deceased -- no prima facie evidence to establish provocation, encouragement, persuasion or compulsion to commit suicide -- for threatening and beating, appropriate legal action can be taken -- charges for offence u/s 306/34 quashed.

       

        naM Áfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482 rFkk 228 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 306@34 rFkk 107 && vkosnd&vfHkqDrx.k us vfHkdfFkr :i ls e`rd dks /kedh nh vkSj ihVk && vkRegR;k djus ds fy, izdksiu] izksRlkgu] izsj.k ;k ncko dk dksbZ izFken`"V~;k lk{; ugha && /kedh nsus vkSj ihVus ds fy, leqfpr fof/k dkjZokbZ dh tk ldrh gS && /kkjk 306@34 ds v/khu vkjksi vfHk[kafMr fd, x,A

       

        This petition under section 482, CrPC has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet for offence under section 306 read with section 34, IPC against the petitioners.

       

        The facts giving rise to this petition in brief are:

       

        One Ashok Kumar Gupta, the husband of the complainant Smt. Anita Gupta, committed suicide by consuming Sulphas. The complainant Smt. Anita Gupta presented a criminal complaint against the petitioners and one Ramesh Gangwani alleging that the deceased Ashok Kumar Gupta was persuaded by them to commit suicide. The learned Magistrate sent the complaint filed by Smt. Anita Gupta for investigation to the concerned police. After investigation, the concerned police filed a charge-sheet for offence under section 306 read with section 34, IPC against the petitioners.

       

        It has been alleged that the petitioners were the tenants of the shops owned by the deceased. The deceased intended to get the shops vacated from the possession of the petitioners. It is also alleged that the deceased was receiving anonymous threatening and was also beaten by the petitioners and threatened by them. Since the shops could not be vacated from the possession of the petitioners and because of the incident of beating by the petitioners and giving threatening by them, the deceased committal committed suicide.

       

        This petition was filed against the State. After hearing both the parties, this Court by the order dated 27.3.2000 allowed the petition and quashed the charge-sheet filed against the petitioners. The complainant Smt. Anita Gupta moved the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, vide order dated 15.12.2000 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1126 of 2000 (arising out of SLP (Cr.) No. 2550/2000), quashed the order passed by this Court on the ground that the complainant Smt. Anita Gupta was not given opportunity of being heard and that it was not clear from the record as to what was the stage of investigation. It has been directed by the Supreme Court that the matter be re-heard after giving notice to the complainant and after having heard both the parties. Consequently, a notice was issued to the complainant Smt. Anita Gupta who has been represented by a counsel.

       

        Having heard the learned counsel for both the sides and having carefully scrutinised the entire material on record, I am of the considered view that this petition deserves to be allowed. The facts as alleged in the complaint which form part of the first information report, even if they are taken at their face value accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute the offence under section 306 read with section 34 IPC. It has been alleged that the deceased was given threatening regarding the transaction between the petitioners and the deceased. It is also alleged that once the deceased was also beaten. However, there is nothing on record to primafacie establish that the deceased was ever provoked or encouraged or persuaded or compelled by the petitioners to commit suicide. For the alleged act of beating the deceased and giving threatening to him, the appropriate legal action could be taken against the petitioners. The act of commission of suicide by the deceased was not the consequence of any of the acts allegedly committed by the petitioners.

       

        It has been held by this Court in Pursottam v. The State of M.P. (M.Cr.C. No. 3974 of 2000) that it is possible that some sensitive people are motivated to commit suicide on account of certain actions of the others, but every such action of another person cannot be said to be an offence within the meaning of section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. It has, further, been held that the prosecution should have alleged those facts which would bring a person within the four comers of section 107 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 306 thereof.

       

        In the present case, the prosecution has utterly failed to prima facie establish that the act of the commission of suicide by the deceased was in consequence of any of the action of the petitioners and therefore it cannot be said that the deceased was abetted to commit suicide by the petitioners.

       

        For reasons stated above, it is abundantly clear that there is no sufficient material for presuming that the petitioners have committed the offence as above and therefore the continuance of the criminal proceedings for offence under section 306 read with section 34, IPC against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and quashing of the proceedings is, therefore, necessary to secure the ends of justice.

       

        In view of above, this petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Criminal case No. 3712000 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadarwara, district Narasinghpur are quashed.